posted on September 28, 2000 08:32:14 AM new
Pareau,
You're being fed incomplete information, and also information which I put in place, and some that I've never heard of at all.
Cariad,
That's correct, except that my statement of friendship, made to pattaylor shortly after his arrival had nothing to do with sgtmike's suspensions. He did those all by himself.
posted on September 28, 2000 08:38:30 AM new
Outside the obvious fact there are some here who are (simply) forum weasels who run around nipping at the butts of others, whining about matters (incidents) that did/do not include them or was directed at them, trying to instigate disciplinary actions because he or she is too immature to (even) handle statements (not) about them, overreacting to the use of petty and humorous slang e.g., "…frickin wheeny, frickin phoney," and the inability to eat the very food (they) brew and serve, it appears an excellent and informative debate has taken place….so far.
If you lack any real life experiences and you constantly feel left out of serious and worldly debates, and your only contribution is to play forum referee and throw yellow flags here and there, go find a discussion that is better suited to your level of knowledge or ability.
I am not emotionally hostile towards krs regardless of the tone each reader applies to my comments. krs has played the very same game for a very long time, and continues to do so. I used to allow him to get away with his ever-occurring jabs and fabricated statements. However, now that I am and doing to him what he does to others, he obviously has a very difficult time seeing himself in the mirror and handling what he served and serves. If a reader does not know how fabricated his statements sometimes are, as I do, then the reader is left with the impression that my rebuttals and my challenges are unwarranted and intentionally provoking. Krs knows.
It is unpleasant to see that his maturity and sportsmanship does not meet the level I originally considered, and do not correlate with the experiences he has professed to have and the social work (veteran assistance) functions he says he is part of. It is this fact and other discrepancies that cause me to be suspicious.
Being that I have not specifically flaunted my background, experiences, and skills, I am at disadvantage with those who recklessly and emotionally accept something said as being the truth and being accurate only because the person speaking is their party candidate.. Nevertheless, I can assure you, much of what krs has provided regarding his background, veteran related matters, VA matters, etc. is adulterated, exaggerated, misstated, and (absolutely) incorrect. It is obvious he hurriedly scans and grabs pieces of information, often out of context, from research material, which is quite proper, but it quite obvious he does not always correctly and completely interpret what he has read.
Therefore, he is guilty of providing incorrect information. In time, the truth (will) be obvious to those having the ability to intelligently discern, regardless they might not say.
posted on September 28, 2000 08:48:45 AM new
[QUOTE]
Outside the obvious fact there are some here who are (simply) forum weasels who run around nipping at the butts of others, whining about matters (incidents) that did/do not include them or was directed at them, trying to instigate disciplinary actions because he or she is too immature to (even) handle statements (not) about them, overreacting to the use of petty and humorous slang e.g., "…frickin wheeny, frickin phoney," and the inability to eat the very food (they) brew and serve, it appears an excellent and informative debate has taken place….so far.
If you lack any real life experiences and you constantly feel left out of serious and worldly debates, and your only contribution is to play forum referee and throw yellow flags here and there, go find a discussion that is better suited to your level of knowledge or ability. [/QUOTE]
Now, Mikey, you stop bad-mouthin' your cyber-wife thataway!
posted on September 28, 2000 08:50:23 AM new
mikey,
Would you mind offering support to this statement publically:
Nevertheless, I can assure you, much of what krs has provided regarding his background, veteran related matters, VA matters, etc. is adulterated, exaggerated, misstated, and(absolutely) incorrect.
posted on September 28, 2000 08:54:14 AM newBeing that I have not specifically flaunted my background, experiences, and skills, I am at disadvantage with those who recklessly and emotionally accept something said as being the truth and being accurate only because the person speaking is their party candidate.. Nevertheless, I can assure you, much of what krs has provided regarding his background, veteran related matters, VA matters, etc. is adulterated, exaggerated, misstated, and (absolutely) incorrect. It is obvious he hurriedly scans and grabs pieces of information, often out of context, from research material, which is quite proper, but it quite obvious he does not always correctly and completely interpret what he has read.
In other words: Because I say so.
And there's the problem. You don't have a shred of real proof, just your opinion. A feeling. And that's not sufficient justification to publicly question a man's service record, or his integrity.
If you have evidence to back your claims about krs, then lay it out for all to see.
posted on September 28, 2000 08:56:03 AM new
I know you know, and being I am not competing for forum status, the fact you know I know is sufficient...with me.
posted on September 28, 2000 09:04:35 AM new
A smiley face? You assassinate a man's character, then when he asks you to prove what you've said, you come back with a smiley?
posted on September 28, 2000 09:05:40 AM new
mikey,
That's not good enough. You know nothing. I've actually given you proof privately, and you question the spelling.
There is much more proof, but all of it is considered to be privacy protected under the law, and if you have any of it which I have not provided to you I would like you to post it here or send it to me so that I can explore with the appropriate authority how it is that you have come to obtain it.
As I'm sure that you know, it would be inconvenient to initiate a civil action interstate, but you may not know that there are avenues with federal law which make those difficulties unneccessary.
Posting here would simplify things agreat deal since I reside in the state in which the posting would occur.
I'm not being "fed" anything, krs. I'm reading. Tomswift's post includes an email from you to a third poster in which you appear to take credit for the names I listed. Someone else quoted those names in a more recent thread, and I glossed over that, but here they are in what seems to be correspondence from you. That's hard to overlook.
I posted the list for one reason, and just one reason: It shed light on why you persist in implying that I'm someone else, or that I'm misrepresenting the timing of my arrival AW in any way, shape or form. That's the sole value, to me, to proof of your multifaceted background here, and why I mentioned it.
I'm tired of being maligned by people for things I haven't done, including lying about my identity here at AW. Your future consideration would be appreciated, krs.
You're back to talking about your "service record." I do believe this thread is about post-war veteran issues.
As for the subject of your last post, be careful, you are corrupting your image. It appears you cannot handle the very same tactics (you) use. You feel cornered and now you want to scream "foul" and utter meaningless threats of civil actions. Such antics contradict statements of "foolish and ignorant" you have made to others that have said or implied what you now have.
Return to providing information regarding veteran issues.
posted on September 28, 2000 09:23:38 AM new
sgtmike, you said:
Nevertheless, I can assure you, much of what krs has provided regarding his background, veteran related matters, VA matters, etc. is adulterated, exaggerated, misstated, and (absolutely) incorrect.
That's unequivocal. You are saying that krs is lying to us. Unlike a number of us, krs has a public identity in the OAI. If you cannot prove that he is, here and now, I hope he takes formal legal action against you.
posted on September 28, 2000 09:23:52 AM new
dcj@lobotomylilts sez:
He who makes use of sergeant for his chat board name
is ill-suited to take up the banner of blame
and start chastising others as though there were shame
in presenting the truth when one's honor's defamed
by the very same sergeant who's making the claim.
And the proof for the one who's been here so maligned
Is readily seen and quite easy to find
while the claims of the other (and may I remind
you that this is the one who has feasted and dined
on any discrepancy from the rigid line
of provable fact? Puts him in a bind...)
for the claims of the other are borne in his mind.
And now having poisoned the well, he won't drink
taking leave of his victim to swim or to sink -
*He* doesn't need proof, it's enough that we know
that it *must* be the truth, 'cause he *thinks* it is so.
posted on September 28, 2000 09:26:58 AM new
Hashed and rehashed, pareau. I think that it should be clear that the contents of that email cannot be considered an official document, nor can my own words be relied on as truth. Had you read further, you might know that.
There are posters who could show that some of the names I said WERE me, were in fact NOT me, for they were them.
I'm sure that Glenda appreciates your having "glossed over" certain postings, or perhaps her kitten does at least, but it seems that you "gloss over" a great deal if it is not convenient to you.
In any case, there was a general amnesty issued late in 1998, and I've been krs only since then. Either way, I was not Henry and krs at all, but each separately, and gaggles when krs had been ousted.
But, oh, Quite right in your above.
No, 1998, or whenever it was that bobmiller came here. LOL! I had to stop and think 1988? Have I been at this too long?
[ edited by krs on Sep 28, 2000 09:33 AM ]
posted on September 28, 2000 09:32:20 AM new
Correction: General amnesty was granted in early August 1999 (not in 1988) when Bob Mills became moderator.
[ edited by stockticker on Sep 28, 2000 09:33 AM ]
posted on September 28, 2000 09:36:44 AM new
Yeah. That. I don't keep track, and my archives are so big now that I can't find anything without a full day's work. Gonna' have to put Beth on the payroll.
posted on September 28, 2000 09:42:37 AM new
Ever wonder how the news media gains access to information on individuals having a federal created and controlled file?
I. Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act
1. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA)
The public has access to certain military service information without the veteran's authorization (or that of the next-of-kin of deceased veterans). Examples of information which may be available from Official Military Personnel Files without an unwarranted invasion of privacy include:
Name
Service Number
Rank
Dates of Service
Awards and decorations
Place of entrance and separation
posted on September 28, 2000 09:51:07 AM newAnd now having poisoned the well, he won't drink taking leave of his victim to swim or to sink - *He* doesn't need proof, it's enough that we know that it *must* be the truth, 'cause he *thinks* it is so.
Ross and his cronies did the same thing to pareau last week. It was just as disgusting, just as wrong. Yet people like sgtmike and Ross continue to get away with their little hate campaigns.
I think the Moderators here have been wrong to let this character assassination continue, especially since it's painfully obvious by now that sgtmike is just pushing buttons, with no real information to back it up.
ubb
[ edited by spazmodeus on Sep 28, 2000 09:53 AM ]
posted on September 28, 2000 09:52:50 AM new
Quite right, mikey, and when you have obtained those pieces of information I will be informed and I will also expect that you will post a retraction of each and every false and accusatory statement you have made here.
However, many of your statements have extended in scope beyond
Name
Service Number
Rank
Dates of Service
Awards and decorations
Place of entrance and separation
in that your so-called (by you) interpretations have been defammatory and false.
In any case, since you already have my name and rank at time of award as given you by me, and which you have stated were not in factual truth, please post those, or those portions of the document, a copy of which is now in your possession, which you purport to be lies and falsehoods.
posted on September 28, 2000 09:56:01 AM new
Hi Shell,
The cable man is due between 10:30 and 12:30.
But DSL is slower and more expensive. This is just a burning up piece of hardware. They'll put it on Reddeer's bill since I cited him as the person who referred me to them. LOL!
posted on September 28, 2000 09:59:46 AM new
sgtmike,
Your post to krs:
Nevertheless, I can assure you, much of what krs has provided regarding his background, veteran related matters, VA matters, etc. is adulterated, exaggerated, misstated, and(absolutely) incorrect.
is a direct insult, and a violation of the Community Guidelines. I am issuing you an informal warning. Please do not continue in this vein. Doing so will place your posting privileges in jeopardy.
posted on September 28, 2000 10:01:12 AM new
Aw well heck if someone else is footing the bill, I'd stick with it.
I don't know bout cost, but my DSL runs about $50 a month, and I have hub that runs 4 computers on it, currently only 3 are running right now. Now thats not a bad deal! However, if someone was paying my access, I'd stick with that! LOL
